Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case

An anonymous reader writes: "In a case with implications for the freedom to blog, a San Jose judge tentatively ruled Thursday that Apple Computer can force three online publishers to surrender the names of confidential sources who disclosed information about the company's upcoming products. The San Jose news piece has the most detail on the ruling while Mac Daily News has some background on the case, and Gizmodo vociferously expresses an opinion on the lawsuit. We've covered the case in the past as well.

This is not about journalism or blogging

It's about a company protecting their secrets from being rebroadcast on a world-wide medium.

It's not about journalism or blogging.

Re:This is not about journalism or blogging

You're both wrong. It's not about secrets, blogging, journalism, or free speech. It's about breaking conctractual agreements, and "contracts are promises that the law will enforce".

Re:This is not about journalism or blogging

Novak isn't getting off the hook because of first amendment rights. He's getting a free pass because he's a mouthpiece for the current government administration. There are other people involved in that case who are having a very rough time with it.

Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless

If they didn't win, then all NDAs are pointless because you could just put an anonymous post on some website and not get in trouble for it.

Re:Good, otherwise all NDAs are pointless

The NDA is a "confidentially " contract with whomever the company is disclosing the info to. It is not with the blog or website that that person leaks the info too. The leaker has violated the NDA, if there was one (or possibly his terms of employment) and is liable for doing so. This is completely seperate from the freedom of the press issues raised here, and more importantly the issue of online publications being somehow different that traditional media and thus not deserving of the same rights and protections. Apple is completely within its rights to go after the leakers, but should not be allowed to treat the blogs any different that say the New York Times.

Dangerous precedent

such protections apply only to "legitimate members of the press."

So now we have the courts deciding who is and who is not a journalist? We have them deciding what is legitimate journalism and what is not?

This is the beginning of an "authorized" press with greater freedoms than for anyone who dares to publish outside of it.

It scares me a lot as it could easily be abused to restrict free speach online.

Re:Dangerous precedent

>It scares me a lot as it could easily be abused to restrict free speach online.

you can have it back when you learn to spell it*.

*and the answer isn't "I-T"

Re:Dangerous precedent

We already have people to decide who is and is not a journalist - for example, the Canadian Association of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, and so on. This is how real journalists get press passes, by the way - they join the associations, which check their credentials, and issue passes.

I doubt this 'blogger' is a member of any professional journalism organizations. I doubt they have any formal training, or indeed any training whatsoever. I'm curious as to how 'journalism' can be confused with some guy writing something and distributing it to the masses. If I print flyers and distribute them on the street corner, am I a journalist? No. If I tape posters to streetlamps and hydro poles, am I a journalist? No.

Journalism is a profession that requires both skill and responsibility. To call bloggers 'journalists' is akin to calling an MCSE an 'engineer'. The word is far from the truth, and if being called a journalist requires nothing more than a voice, then the single most important career possible in an open and democratic society suddenly means nothing. When a loud voice and a sense of self-righteousness can be considered equal to understanding of ethics, unbiased reporting, and facility with the language, then 'journalism' is suddenly just a word, and all the respect it once deserved is lost forever.

These people are not journalists, they are not reporters, and they are not worthy of anyone's respect. They are helping someone who broke an NDA escape due process, something that I doubt any good journalist would be willing to do - but then, any good journalist wouldn't have posted the details in the first place.

This is not a free speech issue. This is a legal issue. Someone signed a contract saying they would not disclose the information they learned, and then they broke that contract. No one is speaking as to the blogger's right to post, they are only speaking as to the source's right to leak, which does not exist. This has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with contractual obligation, and the person who leaked this information should be revealed, as they can not and should not be trusted with sensitive information by any company, ever again.

Here's an example to put this into perspective: my company deals with a lot of personal information for thousands of clients. Do I want to hire someone who has, in the past, broken their contractual obligations? Do I want them leaking the spending habits of important clients to the press, putting my company and my business in danger?

Slashdotters are always talking about privacy issues, but the only things stopping me from leaking the (very) personal details of thousands of people onto the internet is my sense of ethics and an NDA. This person obviously does not have a sense of ethics, and if an NDA is worthless when hidden behind an 'anonymous tip', then you can all kiss your privacy goodbye.

Uhh...

Ok, I'll talk. I got a call from a guy who said his name was Steve Jobs, and he told me all this stuff. He sent me an email (see, the "From:" line says "[e-mail]"!) with the pictures and stuff. I figured he should know, right? What? The headers say the email comes from an anonymizer in the Netherlands? Sorry, I don't know what that means.

Is it possible they don't know their source?

The article didn't state it explicitly, but I was wondering if maybe they overheard the information.

I remember when I worked at Intel in Portland, there was a bar and grill called the Cornelius Pass Roadhouse that everyone visited after work('Today's been a killer, I need CPR'). Journalists from Wired would hang out in adjacent tables and take notes as the chip designers gave away the entire roadmap without knowing a single name.

Further reports...

The news came as a letdown for those running ThinkSecret, but their spirits were picked up when Apple served their final notice on nice metallic gray paper, in a design that could only be called "compact, simple, elegant, and effective."

Appeal & refuse to comply. What's news?

It ain't over yet. In the interim, I'm sure there will be an appeal and nobody will be forced to reveal anything until the appeal is decided. The judge is still hearing from Apple and the EFF.

If forced, I'd refuse to comply. Yes, doing so will park you in jail. Blogs are publications and are often widely syndicated; they're often used as sources for major broadcast and dead tree news stories. ThinkSecret is as legitimate as the Talon; well, bad example on the latter.

Trade secrets are not national security. ThinkSecret and the other folks weren't trafficing in them (selling them to competitors) which would be industrial espionage; they were writing news articles about them.

Is The Register [theregister.co.uk] a legitimate news service? Is Tomshardware [tomshardware.com]? Is Slashdot? Is Democracy Now [democracynow.org]? What about al-Jazeera [aljazeera.com]? Fox News [foxnews.com]? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "legitimate" and an "illegitmate" news agency?

Re:Appeal & refuse to comply. What's news?

Slashdot is not much of a news agency. It's more of a community, one that is spurred into discussion via news aggregation. Except for the occasional interview, /. editors put very little effort into creating content, they don't research, they don't break stories, they don't fact-check.

National Security is not the only reason that something should be held secret. Private information, whether it belongs to a person or a corporation should generally be considered private, especially when ones source is of questionable legality.

For an only partly applicable analogy (a better one doesn't come to mind), the patterns on my underwear is not a matter of national security, but it's not really anyone's business either. I don't care for the whole world to know about it. But if you decide you want to write a story about it, how you get your information is a pretty significant part of your job. If you ask me, or maybe my girlfriend, and one of us cough up the info, then fine, run with it. If you're courting people who you think may have broken into my house and rifled through my dresser, well, that's a bit sketchy. And when I read the article you published, and realize you probably know who it was that broke into my house and went through all my stuff, I'd expect you to tell me who it was. Otherwise you're basically aiding a criminal.

Now in Apple's case, it's a little different, but someone broke an NDA, a legal-contract that they willingly signed, and Apple wants to know who it is so that they can take actions against them that they feel appropriate. ThinkSecret can play dumb all they want, but with as long as they've been around, they understood that they were soliciting information that they're only going to receive if someone breaks an NDA. By not giving up their sources, they're helping someone who broke the law get away with it. I don't understand how that is defensible.

Re:Now correct me if im wrong...

Yes there is, but if you had read the article you would have seen that the Judge did NOT consider these bloggers journalists. RTFA.

Defining "Journalist" where?

The case is in California. I don't think New York State Consolidated Laws apply there. On the other hand, California has a Shield Law that provides persons connected with news organizations with an immunity from being held in contempt "for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for [public dissemination]... or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.", that may or may not apply.

Re:Now correct me if im wrong...

There is. However, there is a caveat that precludes them from publishing things that are trade secrets are should reasonably know are trade secrets. Such disclosure can require them to reveal sources. This is not a Deep Throat type scenario. The guy should have known not to publish what he did.

Having said that, I want to clear something up. Did he simply report on the specs of soon to be released hardware? Was it that simple? If so, I am not sure the ought-to-have-known-these-are-trade-secrets argument holds water. If the machines were about to be released, their specs would shortly become public domain.

Can anyone clarify?

Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected

Journalists sources are most definitely NOT protected. Journalists do not have a legal right to obstruct justice.

It's been a long standing tradition, but there is no federal law concerning it. This has all been explained due to the outing of a CIA operative by a republican schill.

Hmmm...

There is no question here of the blogger in question "obstructing justice". Seems to me that Apple is guilty here of some fairly heavy-handed treatment, given that the blogger in question is essentially just passing on rumours, which is pretty much stock in trade for any journalist, whether "legitimate" (by whatever legal definition applies) or not.

I am aware that there is a large proportion of Mac fanboys here on Slashdot, but Apple's antics lately have borne a striking resemblance to some of those from Microsoft, and I see no particular reason why they should be applauded.

You are wrong in a lot of ways

1) This is not a Federal case
2) This is being tried in California
3) California has an specific law protecting journalists from this kind of thing, the Shield law:
"California enacted a shield law in 1935 and, in 1980, incorporated it into the state constitution. The shield law protects a journalist from being held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose either unpublished information or the source of any information that was gathered for news purposes, whether the source is confidential or not. An exception can arise where a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to a fair trial would be violated without a reporter's testimony."

I don't know if it aplies to this case, but the law exists.

Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected

And Dan Rather is?

I'm about to reference a Daily Show here, but it still is a fact. Recently, CNN (along with other major "journalism" places) broadcast a story they claimed to be breaking when what they were really doing was reading someones blog.

Face it, If you can publish to the web, and report information which has been given to you/you find, you are a journalist. If you do not fact check and post everything you get, then you are a bad journalist, but still, a journalist.

Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected

Nope. When a journalist gets secret information and tries to protect the source, it's usually for the reason that it's information the public has a right, or neeed to know. Someone is doing something underhanded, etc, that the public should know about and have the right to correct or to react to. It's done for the public good.

There is nothing about the release of Apple's internal plans that was 'for the public good'. The only good was for Apple's competitors. They could now see what Apple was planning and react to it.

These publishers and their sources should be hammered by the court IMHO.

Re:Journalists' Sources, are, of course, Protected

...but are these "three online publishers" journalists?

I'll vote 'No.'

Bullshit. What is a journalist? ANYBODY can be journalist.

Re:Bad news for Apple

Think Secret is NOT an Apple fan - in fact they often report negatively - partner with the resellers that are suing Apple - and do so at the expense of Apple buyers (stealing press thunder, building up expectations too high, and litigation/cease and decist concerns)

Re:If Microsoft is a Virus, Apple is a Tumor

But how much worse would it be if Apple took over?

No, it would be better.

If only because the sight of Steve Jobs skipping up and down a stage with sweaty armpits screaming "Developers" over and over again would probably not be now giving me such bad nightmares...

Re:If Microsoft is a Virus, Apple is a Tumor

In Bizzarro Apple Land, only rich, Blaupunkt-owning, BMW-driving hipsters would be allowed to compute

So like the target market of the Mac mini?

developers would be expected to grovel for the supreme privilege of creating apps for the One True Operating System

So those free developer tools?

Businesses in non-sexy segments would be denied licenses

So like super computing?

I think you are basing your ideas off the Apple of old run not by dreamers but by boring businessmen. Apple has and is changing and at quite a rapid rate. They want everyone to experience and enjoy their products, a quick look at the drop in prices of all their product lines would indicate that. Not to mention of course that Mac OS X is the most accessible operating system out there now, no funky 3D interface, not strange and bizarre "elite" windowing system just plain system Desktop metaphor with reasonable consistency for joe user.